Beside a waste of money

Status
Not open for further replies.
1793

1793

Senior Member
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
Occupation
Inspector
I'm not sure where to look in the 2005 edition to find if it is a violation to install a ML 200 amp panel when the service is only 150 amp.

I would like to find the reference.

Thanks
 
Re: Beside a waste of money

I am not sure where in the code gives permission, but I do know it is not a problem at all.

I use 100 amp panels for sixty amp sub-panels all the time. I have even used 200 amp panels for 100 amp sub-panels before, in order to get more breaker spaces.
 
Re: Beside a waste of money

There was a proposal to the 2005 NEC that suggested that feeder conductor's ampacity & protection should not exceed the panelboard's rating.

It was (rightfully) rejected with the following statement:
Proposal 2-275
Panel Statement:
The present Code rules in Articles 215, 240, and 408 provide proper guidance for protection of panelboards and feeder conductors. Larger ampere panelboards are often used in installations to gain the number of circuit spaces required by the design. Improper sizing of the overcurrent device relative to the feeder conductors by unqualified persons would not be resolved by the submitter's proposal.
Click to expand...

[ February 22, 2006, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 
Re: Beside a waste of money

norb, is this ML 200amp panel being used as the main panel ,or as a sub to the main panel?
Rick
 
Re: Beside a waste of money

Originally posted by georgestolz:
There was a proposal to the 2005 NEC that suggested that feeder conductor's ampacity & protection should not exceed the panelboard's rating.
Click to expand...
George, that sounds like it makes sense already. Perhaps you meant the opposite, that the panelboards rating not exceed the feeder's capacity, which is what the rejection addresses.
 
Re: Beside a waste of money

Originally posted by LarryFine:
Perhaps you meant the opposite...
Click to expand...
Yep. :eek:

That's okay, when I first typed it out I wrote "the panelboard's rating shouldn't exceed the panelboard's rating..." Figure that one out. Looks like I edited the wrong one. :D
 
Re: Beside a waste of money

The panel must be protected at its rating. If this is a sub-panel, and if you have a 150 amp breaker in the main panel protecting the 150 amp feeder to a 200 amp MLO sub-panel, then everything will be properly protected.

The issue with a service panel is that the service disconnecting means need not include an overcurrent device. So if you have a 200 amp MLO service panel, what would protect it against overcurrent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top